yorkmover123 wrote:When do we receive our back pay any date been agreed
how surprising mail centre staff asking about back pay wont a affect them one bit
That's ok because if they had read all of the agreement properly they would have seen that it's only posties getting back pay, mail sorting centres get theirs next year.
So mc staff getting the blame for delivery not voting yet again
Creditshampoo wrote:I think it’s absolitely pathetic of the people who didn’t vote
Why?
There were always three choices. Why is making one of the three any more pathetic than the other two?
I would say given how poor the other two options were not voting probably comes out as the most sensible.
Could not disagree with you more Fishtank.
Having splinters on your arse is not the answer, it’s either right or wrong as with any decision or choice to be made.
If you are talking cherry picking the offer was for yeh or nay at the end of the day. I’m a poet now !
For me the goal isn't to simply earn more money but to live life on your own terms. This agreement could well represent something of a watershed in that respect. I dread to think what agreements could be drafted up in future just so the CWU can enable the 'flight to 35'. Something tells me that its not going to happen unless we are all out doing 7 hour deliveries every day with automated hours data capture being used to its fullest extent.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
tommyrep wrote:it’s either right or wrong as with any decision or choice to be made.
As with any decision or choice it's only right or wrong if you ignore the consequences of your decision. The CWU think voting yes was "right" and no was "wrong", you think voting no was "right" and yes was "wrong". You are obviously both "right" and both "wrong" therefore the decision to abstain as long as it was an active decision was justified.
tommyrep wrote:it’s either right or wrong as with any decision or choice to be made.
As with any decision or choice it's only right or wrong if you ignore the consequences of your decision. The CWU think voting yes was "right" and no was "wrong", you think voting no was "right" and yes was "wrong". You are obviously both "right" and both "wrong" therefore the decision to abstain as long as it was an active decision was justified.
I think the CWUs advice was wrong in this instance. Many voted yes as is their right. To have NO opinion and abstain was not a question posed on the ballot paper, anyone not voting is copping out, letting a 55% turnout rule the day, hardly a true indicator of it being the right or wrong decision They are the ones that are ignoring the consequences of the decision by not voting. Yet will no doubt complain about the consequences in the future. We all know the consequences of Turkeys voting in favour for Xmas diner choices ! Not a bad choice in some people’s opinion.
You're conflating not voting with having no opinion.
If you don't like either option that's a valid opinion. It was also my opinion. I only voted No because I knew in this case it would have no consequences.
Abstaining from a binary vote is totally pointless unless everybody abstained. Seen as that is not in any way earthly possible, the correct procedure is to vote for the lesser of two evils if you are against both choices.
But the real question that is neatly glossed over is why you have only two choices; or more importantly the content of the choices presented to you. Who decides what you will be offered to choose between ?
IF you pick the game and make the rules ,then, succeed in fooling the majority into accepting these terms , well you just can't lose.
Its called agenda setting and it works like a charm. Everybody gets involved in the minutiae of the deal and fails to see the outcome was rigged from the start.
Its an old but effective sales technique "It's a nice car sir. Would you like it in red or blue?"
